l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 Posted by Jay Tea
Published: July 4, 2011 - 10:15 AM
This day, the 235th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of
Independence and the day we consider our nation's "birthday," seems an
appropriate topic to discuss a question that has possibly brought up more
Constitutional questions than any other:
The death penalty.
As odd as it sounds for such a weighty matter, I really don't have any
strong feelings on the matter. It's almost purely an intellectual issue for
me; I don't have a lot of emotional value invested in it. But a lot of other
people do, and it's almost always a flashpoint for quite heated discussions.
And the Constitutionality of the death penalty is often questioned. In fact,
at one point, the Supreme Court overturned the death penalty laws of all 50
states, forcing each and every state that wanted to continue the practice
to rewrite their laws from scratch. (That "window" is why Charles Manson,
among others, was not sentenced to death.) But is it Constitutional?
In the abstract, absolutely. It's explicitly referred to in the Fifth
Amendment, where restrictions are cited -- and by imposing restrictions, it'
s clear that it is allowable if those restrictions are met.
My own opinion on the death penalty is that it is Constitutional and,
occasionally, necessary. It was largely shaped by a single case:
Massachusetts' Joseph Druce.
Druce was convicted of first-degree murder in Massachusetts, which has no
death penalty. He was sentenced to life without parole. But while imprisoned
, he stalked a fellow inmate -- convicted pedophile priest John Geoghan --
until he cornered him in a cell, jammed the door shut behind them, and beat
Geoghan to death before guards could open the door. Premeditation was never
a question; Druce had calculated just how thick a book would have to be to
jam the door, and had torn pages out of a book to be precisely the right
thickness.
For his crime, Druce was indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced -- life
in prison without possibility of parole.
In other words, nothing. But in the course of that procedure, he was
shuttled back and forth from prison to court for weeks -- a nice change of
scenery and pace for a man who had no other diversions or distractions to
distract him from the endless tedium of waiting to die.
In the case of prisoners in such situations, there is literally no incentive
for them to not commit murder, and a healthy one to do so. And while Druce'
s victim was, to be blunt, no great loss to society, next time it could be a
guard or other more worthwhile person. People like Druce are beyond the
reach of any other penalties; they literally have nothing to lose, and
therefore no reason why they should not commit murder. The death penalty
would serve as a potential check on their behavior where nothing else can.
On the other hand, there are cases like Cory Maye. Maye has been noted
libertarian scholar and pundit Radley Balko's personal cause for years. Maye
was in his home, minding his own business, when police -- acting on a
seriously flawed search warrant on the wrong home -- carried out a "no-knock
" entry. Maye, believing he was defending himself and his family, opened
fire. As soon as he realized the invaders were police, he dropped his weapon
and surrendered, but it was too late -- one officer was killed. For that,
he was arrested, tried, and sentenced to death.
Years later, he's finally had his sentence commuted and is being released --
thanks in no large part to Balko's tireless efforts on his behalf.
It's usually a bad idea to set a law or a policy based on a single case. But
here are two cases that seem to give two conflicting opinions on the death
penalty: the Druce case shows how the death penalty is necessary, the Maye
case shows how dangerous it can be when the justice system is abused.
There has to be a "happy medium," a way that keeps the penalty for those
cases where it is truly merited, but restricted enough to prevent (or at
least greatly limiting) the chances of injustices like that perpetrated
against people like Maye.
I just don't know how it could be crafted to meet both needs -- if it even
can. |
|
